Map repository (one-shot)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses internal orchestration ('runs scan + import-graph + render internally'), side effects (writes architecture.html and raw source into the repo), configurable output location (outPath), and the return payload (HTML path, facts summary, draft diagram source). It lacks potential permission or idempotency details but gives substantial behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the primary action and return values, the second covers defaults and alternative tool usage. All information is front-loaded and purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a medium-complexity orchestration tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, filesystem side effects, and how it relates to sibling tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand high-level consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default output ('architecture.html plus the raw source (.mermaid or .dot) into the repo') and clarifying the outPath behavior ('write elsewhere'). It also reinforces the format and level concepts, going beyond the schema's basic descriptors.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Point at a folder and get a downloadable architecture diagram in one call' and clearly names the resource and outcome. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from its granular siblings by positioning it as a one-shot orchestrator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Exactly states when to use the tool ('Point at a folder and get...') and when not to ('Use the granular tools... only when you need to compose the steps yourself'). It names all alternative sibling tools, providing clear direction for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.